Sean Hager wrote: > > > To get to the point I would really like the developers of > > log4j to say "We > > are willing to maintain x subset of our API forever with 100% backward > > compatibility". I understand completely why you would be > > reluctant to make > > such a commitment but I would like to try and tempt you: > > Another idea might be to change the name space when backwards compatibility > in the API is broken. This way embedded applications are not broken. > > For example our revision history might look like this. > > org.apache.log4j.1.* would equal all of versions 1.*.* > > When ever a api change is made that breaks backwards compatibility the major > version number could be incremented and you have. > > org.apache.log4j.2.* for all of the versions 2.*.* > > If application A is embedded inside application B, then application A could > use org.apache.log4j.1.* while application B could use org.apache.log4j.2.* > without confusing the class loader. >
The problem with that is that it would be very hard to integrate the logging events from the different versions correctly. -- This message may contain confidential information and will be protected by copyright. If this email isn't for you then we'd be grateful if you could notify Volantis by return and delete it. You should not copy, disclose or distribute any of its contents. Any reply may be read by the recipient to whom you send it and others within Volantis Systems Ltd. Although we aim to use efficient virus checking procedures we accept no liability for viruses and recipients should use their own virus checking procedures. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
